Drošības līdzekļu tiesiskā regulējuma attīstība 2005–2025

The procedural regulation of preventive coercive measures in the Criminal Procedure Law has not been constant. Over the course of 20 years, Chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law – namely, those governing coercive measures – have been amended by 19 laws, 17 of which concern preventive security measures. Almost none of the articles have retained their original form, while several provisions have been amended multiple times. Nevertheless, despite the frequency and extent of the amendments, there is no basis to conclude that the criminal procedural institution of preventive security measures has been fundamentally transformed. The understanding of security measures, their intended purpose, and their mechanism of application have remained essentially unchanged. Overall, the most numerous amendments have affected the general provisions on the application of security measures and those relating to custodial security measures. In contrast, the legal regulation of non-custodial security measures has seen the fewest changes. The main substantive trends in the amendments to the legal regulation of preventive security measures include: • a predominant focus on improving the wording of the provisions, eliminating internal inconsistencies, and resolving conflicts with other legal acts; • changes to the overall range of security measures, including the removal of some and the introduction of others; • an increase in procedural safeguards for minors; • the expansion of possibilities for applying security measures; • the extension of maximum periods for applying security measures; • a reduction in the intensity of oversight over custodial measures and in the ability to appeal related decisions; • an increase in procedural safeguards for persons subjected to custodial coercive measures; • the introduction of enforcement-related (guaranteeing) measures associated with the observance or execution of security measures, such as the requirement to explain the origin of bail money or the introduction of electronic monitoring for certain security measures. Over the past 20 years, the scope and intensity of personal control through the application of security measures have increased under the Criminal Procedure Law. However, it cannot be unequivocally concluded that procedural safeguards for individuals have increased in equal measure. It must be acknowledged that the proportionality between society’s interest in the effectiveness of security measures and the degree of interference with an individual’s rights – along with procedural guarantees and their protection – has been and will continue to be a key factor both in the drafting of legal provisions and in their practical application.